Working Paper: NBER ID: w12702
Authors: Alvin E. Roth
Abstract: This essay examines how repugnance sometimes constrains what transactions and markets we see. When my colleagues and I have helped design markets and allocation procedures, we have often found that distaste for certain kinds of transactions is a real constraint, every bit as real as the constraints imposed by technology or by the requirements of incentives and efficiency. I'll first consider a range of examples, from slavery and indentured servitude (which once were not as repugnant as they now are) to lending money for interest (which used to be widely repugnant and is now not), and from bans on eating horse meat in California to bans on dwarf tossing in France. An example of special interest will be the widespread laws against the buying and selling of organs for transplantation. The historical record suggests that while repugnance can change over time, change can be quite slow.
Keywords: repugnance; markets; organ transplantation; economic behavior; social norms
JEL Codes: A10; C78; D62; D63; I11
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| societal attitudes (repugnance) (A13) | legal prohibitions against organ sales (L44) |
| societal repugnance (P37) | changes in market practices (D40) |
| societal attitudes (P36) | market acceptance (L17) |
| changing perceptions of slavery (J47) | changes in legal frameworks (K40) |
| repugnance surrounding certain transactions (L14) | prevent trade engagement (F13) |